Barrington & Ors, R. v

Barrington & Ors, R. v

The evidence of prior incidents was admissible as relevant to Sherriff's motive and not unduly prejudicial due to clear judicial directions. Severance was not required. The judge's decisions on editing interviews and excluding hearsay were within discretion. There was sufficient evidence for Williams to answer....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Nicholas Barrington Robert Sherriff; Appellant: Ezekiel Benjamin Sylvester Francis; Appellant: Louis James Richards; Appellant: Leroy Williams; Appellant: Bilal Kumar Mulji; Appellant: Mark Neal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; sentences of Francis and Richards reduced; Mulji's and Neal's sentences adjusted.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Violent Disorder, Admissibility of Evidence, Severance of Trials, Hearsay, Sentencing, Motive Evidence
Criminal Law Conspiracy Violent Disorder Admissibility of Evidence Severance of Trials Hearsay Sentencing Motive Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Nicholas Barrington Robert Sherriff

Appellant

Ezekiel Benjamin Sylvester Francis

Appellant

Louis James Richards

Appellant

Leroy Williams

Appellant

Bilal Kumar Mulji

Appellant

Mark Neal

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of prior incidents (motive evidence) was admissible and prejudicial
  2. 2 Whether severance of trials was required due to prejudicial evidence
  3. 3 Whether certain interview evidence should have been excluded as hearsay

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of prior incidents was admissible as relevant to Sherriff's motive and not unduly prejudicial due to clear judicial directions. Severance was not required. The judge's decisions on editing interviews and excluding hearsay were within discretion. There was sufficient evidence for Williams to answer. Sentences for Francis and Richards were reduced to reflect good character; Mulji's and Neal's sentences were adjusted based on role and lack of a firearms count.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; sentences of Francis and Richards reduced; Mulji's and Neal's sentences adjusted.

Orders

  • Convictions of Sherriff, Francis, Richards, and Williams upheld.
  • Sentences of Francis and Richards reduced from three years to twenty-seven months.